Line Immunoassay for Confirmation and Discrimination of Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus Infections in Inconclusive Western Blot Serum Samples from Brazil.

Difficulties in confirming and discriminating human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) and HTLV-2 infections by serological Western blot (WB) assays (HTLV Blot 2.4; MP Biomedicals) have been reported in Brazil, mainly in HIV/AIDS patients, with a large number of WB-indeterminate and WB-positive but HTLV-untypeable results. Nonetheless, a line immunoassay (LIA) (INNO-LIA HTLV-I/II; Fujirebio) provided enhanced specificity and sensitivity for confirming HTLV-1/2 infections. To add information concerning the improved ability of the LIA in relation to WB when applied to samples of individuals from different risk groups from Brazil, we performed the present study. Three groups were analyzed: group 1 (G1), with 62 samples from HIV/AIDS patients from São Paulo, SP (48 WB indeterminate and 14 HTLV untypeable); group 2 (G2), with 24 samples from patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C from São Paulo (21 WB indeterminate and 3 HTLV untypeable; 17 HIV seropositive); and group 3 (G3), with 25 samples from an HTLV outpatient clinic in Salvador, Bahia (16 WB indeterminate and 9 HTLV untypeable; all HIV seronegative). Overall, the LIA confirmed HTLV-1/2 infection (HTLV-1, HTLV-2, or HTLV) in 66.1% (G1), 83.3% (G2), and 76.0% (G3) of samples. Interestingly, the majority of WB-indeterminate results were confirmed by the LIA as being HTLV-2 positive in G1 and G2 but not in G3, in which the samples were defined as being HTLV-1 or HTLV positive. These results agree with the virus types that circulate in such patients of different regions in Brazil and emphasize that the LIA is the best serological test for confirming HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 infections, independently of being applied in HTLV-monoinfected or HTLV-coinfected individuals.

Performance of Commercially Available Serological Screening Tests for Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus Infection in Brazil.

Serological screening for human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) is usually performed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), particle agglutination, or chemiluminescence assay kits. Due to an antigen matrix improvement entailing the use of new HTLV antigens and changes in the format of HTLV screening tests, as well as newly introduced chemiluminescence assays (CLIAs), a systematic evaluation of the accuracy of currently available commercial tests is warranted. We aimed to assess the performance of commercially available screening tests for HTLV infection diagnosis. A diagnostic accuracy study was conducted on a panel of 397 plasma samples: 200 HTLV-negative plasma samples, 170 HTLV-positive plasma samples, and 27 plasma samples indeterminate by Western blotting (WB). WB-indeterminate samples (i.e., those yielding no specific bands for HTLV-1 and/or HTLV-2) were assessed by PCR, and the results were used to compare agreement among the commercially available ELISA screening tests. For performance analysis, WB-indeterminate samples were excluded, resulting in a final study panel of 370 samples. Three ELISA kits (Murex HTLV-1/2 [Murex], anti-HTLV-1/2 SYM Solution [SYM Solution], and Gold ELISA HTLV-1/2 [Gold ELISA]) and one CLIA kit (Architect rHTLV-1/2) were evaluated. All screening tests demonstrated 100% sensitivity. Concerning the HTLV-negative samples, the SYM Solution and Gold ELISA kits had specificity values of >99.5%, while the Architect rHTLV-1/2 test presented 98.1% specificity, followed by Murex, which had a specificity of 92.0%. Regarding the 27 samples with WB-indeterminate results, after PCR confirmation, all ELISA kits showed 100% sensitivity but low specificity. Accuracy findings were corroborated by the use of Cohen's kappa value, which evidenced slight and fair agreement between PCR analysis and ELISAs for HTLV infection diagnosis. Based on the data, we believe that all evaluated tests can be safely used for HTLV infection screening.